SC questions AIFF over report that it consulted FIFA over its draft constitution
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who assisted the court in finalising the constitution, showed justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar the news report
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the All India Football Federation (AIFF) over a news report that it had consulted the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) over its draft constitution, even as the court had approved it.
“Where is the question of consulting FIFA?” asked a bench of justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who assisted the court in finalising the constitution, showed them the news report that AIFF sought FIFA’s approval for it.
Sankaranarayanan said that there was no requirement to write to FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation. He added that former Supreme Court judge L Nageswara Rao had consulted them at the time of drafting the constitution.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who represented AIFF, said he required time to take instructions from his client. The bench, which posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday, told Kumar, “Do not create a full-time job of going against the court and make it an agenda. We only wanted a good conclusion to the issue, and things are moving positively. For any clarification, we are here.”
Kumar told the court that it should wait for his instructions until Wednesday. “I have not read the report.”
{{/usCountry}}Kumar told the court that it should wait for his instructions until Wednesday. “I have not read the report.”
{{/usCountry}}Sankaranarayanan said the news report, if correct, raises a serious issue. “FIFA is outside the jurisdiction of this court. The AIFF knows this, and they keep undermining the judgment of this court.”
{{/usCountry}}Sankaranarayanan said the news report, if correct, raises a serious issue. “FIFA is outside the jurisdiction of this court. The AIFF knows this, and they keep undermining the judgment of this court.”
{{/usCountry}}On September 19, a bench of justices Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi approved the AIFF constitution. It directed the AIFF to call a meeting of the general body within four weeks and adopt the draft constitution with the proposed modifications.
{{/usCountry}}On September 19, a bench of justices Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi approved the AIFF constitution. It directed the AIFF to call a meeting of the general body within four weeks and adopt the draft constitution with the proposed modifications.
{{/usCountry}}The news report quoted a senior official suggesting that some of the deleted clauses in the draft constitution are in the modified version. One such clause related to barring office bearers in the AIFF executive committee from holding two offices in member state football associations. The report said FIFA permits a person to hold both offices.
{{/usCountry}}The news report quoted a senior official suggesting that some of the deleted clauses in the draft constitution are in the modified version. One such clause related to barring office bearers in the AIFF executive committee from holding two offices in member state football associations. The report said FIFA permits a person to hold both offices.
{{/usCountry}}Advocate Rahul Mehra, who moved the Delhi high court to bring AIFF’s constitution in line with the National Sports Code, said, “The AIFF does not want eminent players to be there in the executive committee. In the past, two AIFF presidents have written similar letters to FIFA...getting such letters from an international body is convenient.”
On September 19, the court called for recognising sporting facilities and opportunities as material resources of the community. It added that their organisers are the institutions of national life. “As places of public resort, sporting institutions and bodies must remain accessible, not just for pursuing sport, but also for its administration.”
The court said the state must endeavour to ensure that sporting facilities and opportunities flourish with institutional efficiency, integrity, professionalism, and expertise. It added that they should be accessible to all without being concentrated in the hands of the “urban economic elite”.
The court rejected suggestions to reduce the proposed strength of 15 eminent players in the general body but tweaked the criteria for deciding their eligibility. “....the freedom of choice to form an association is not in any way compromised by the requirement to incorporate 15 eminent players.”
Hi, {{name}}
Sign out-
Home -
Cricket -
{{^usCountry}}
-
Premium -
{{^tokenValid}}
Sign In {{/tokenValid}} -
{{#tokenValid}}
{{#reader}}
{{/reader}} {{^reader}} {{#firstName}} {{#userImage}} {{/userImage}} {{^userImage}} {{nameInitials}} {{firstName}} {{/userImage}} {{/firstName}} {{/reader}} {{/tokenValid}} -
{{#tokenValid}}
Games {{/tokenValid}}